Rating and social performance assessment of MFIs

4th Azerbaijan Micro-finance ConferenceBaku – 16, 17 September 2008

Aldo Moauro – MicroFinanza Rating

22

Session outline

Institutional profile of MicroFinanza Rating

Introduction to social rating

MicroFinanza Rating’s Social Rating and methodology

Areas of analysis

Scale and global results

Lessons learned

Institutional profile of MicroFinanza Rating

44

MicroFinanza Rating

Private and independent rating agency specializing in microfinance and rural finance

Rating agency registered in the EU/CGAP/IADB Rating and Assessment Fund and the first specialized rating agency licensed by a national regulatory authority (Superintendence of Banks and Insurance of Ecuador)

Currently working in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Central Asia, Russia and the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and the Balkans and the MENA region.

Rating of different types of MFIs: Microfinance NGOs, non-bank financial institutions, savings and credit cooperatives (also multi-tier cooperative systems), microfinance banks, banks, Apex institutions

Offices in Europe (Italy), Latin America (Ecuador and Nicaragua), NIS countries (Kyrgyzstan), Africa (Nairobi)

Decentralization strategy (1 more office in 2008)

55

Our offices

Managua

Quito

MILAN

Bishkek

Nairobi

66

Recent drivers

A large number of investors use our reports (Blue Orchard, Deutsche Bank, Microvest, Triodos, Oikocredit, KfW, etc.) and require specific services

First specialised rating agency recognized by a national regulatory authority (Superintendency of Banks and Insurance in Ecuador) and licensed to carry out credit ratings

More than 270 evaluations in 45 countries

Among our clients there are MFIs belonging to the major international networks such as: Finca, World Vision, Save the Children, Opportunity International, Mercy Corps, CRS, ACDI/VOCA, Aga Khan Development Network, ACCION, CARE, GRET

Number of ratings/assessments - MicroFinanza Rating

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2005 2006 2007 2008Forecast

77

Our vision: progressive transparency

THE CONTEXT

Different MFIs (development stage, institutional typologies, etc.)

Different needs from different stakeholders (donors, social and commercial investors, regulators)

OUR APPROACH

Transparency graduation path (accompanying and coaching MFIs up to the rating through different products)

Products diversification to meet the needs of different stakeholders

88

Products diversification

ASSESSMENTS AND PRE-RATING SERVICES

Institutional diagnosis

Mini-assessment

MICROFINANCE RATING

Public and private rating

Updates and monitoring

SOCIAL PERFORMANCE RATING (SPR)

With survey and without survey

SERVICES FOR INVESTORS

Investment advisory report

Customized services

Monitoring of MFIs

CREDIT RATING

Opinion on the general creditworthiness of an entity

TRAINING

Rating and assessment methodologies

Introduction to social rating

10

The effective translation of an organization's mission into practice and the achievement of its social goals

Social performance is not just about measuring short and long term results that an MFI achieves, but also concerns the processes of the MFI, the activities it undertakes, the products it offers and the organizational values and behavior it promotes not only results but also the process to achieve these results

Social performance and its measurement

The social goals the mission relate to:Reaching target clients (poorer and excluded)

Meeting client needs and demandsImproving the lives of clients and their families

11

What to measure?

Performance is not incidental– Need to define desired

performance– Need to measure against

desired performance– What is explicitly defined and

measured is what is managed

Performance Management

Social Performance

Financial Performance

Mission

12

Social Performance Management

….…is the instutionalisation process of translating a mission into practice and includes:

setting clear social objectives tracking social performance utilizing this information to improve the practice and performance of an

MFI in relation to its social objectives. putting in place systems (products design, credit policies and

procedures, HR policy and management, customer services, etc) aligned with social mission

promote values and correct behaviour towards staff, clients, community and environment

13

Provides an opinion on the capacity of an MFI to put its social mission into practice and to achieve its social goals.

It is based on an analysis of the MFI social performance management system and an evaluation of its results (output)

External and independent

Quantitative and qualitative

Objective

Comparable

Stand-alone or coupled with financial rating

Social performance rating

14

Logical framework

Outreach

Services

IMPACT

Social responsibility – towards clients, community, environment, staff

Social Performance Management

Mission and Objectives Systems Output Intent Process and Input Output

“Put its mission into practice”

Social Rating Impact Study

C H A N GES

15

Social rating vs. impact study

An impact study measures the change in the living conditions of one population due to the action of an MFI.

Social rating does not measure impact; rather, it analyzes the objectives, systems and results of the MFI, before the impact that these may have on clients.

Social Rating and impact studies are complementary tools, meaning one does not substitute the other, but they respond to different needs.

Social Performance Task Force (SPTF)

Created in March 2005, promoted by CGAP, Argidius F., Ford F.

Objective: Clearly defining social performance and addressing questions about measuring and managing social performance.

Leaders from various social performance initiatives in the microfinance industry: SEEP Network, Imp-Act Consortium, CERISE, etc Task force members are: MFIs, social investors, donors, specialized rating agencies

Agreement on a common social performance framework and to develop an action plan to move social performance forward. Two working groups were formed as a result of this meeting: a Social Performance Task Force (“SP Task Force”) and a CGAP Donor Working Group on Social Performance.

The SP Task Force is working to better communicate with the industry what is meant by social performance and address the diverse range of questions relating to social performance measurement and management.

1717

Social Rating – Objectives/benefits

To establish social performance as equally important as financial sustainability in microfinance

To increase transparency in the microfinance field

To contribute to generalizing the adoption of social performance criteria in managing microfinance institutions

To provide a clear picture of MFI social performance to the board, management and staff of microfinance institutions

To provide potential donors and investors with the most appropriate tools and information for making resource allocation decisions

To compare social performance across MFIs

MicroFinanza Rating’s Social Rating and methodology

19

MicroFinanza Rating’s Proposal/ApproachTwo Modalities of Social Rating

Simple Social Rating (without client survey – SR)

Enhanced Social Rating (with client survey – ESR)

Source of Information Data and information available at institutional level

Direct investigation at the clients’ level: -submission of a questionnaire (representative sample of recent clients)- focus groups

Output (outreach and quality of services)

Outreach: proxies (loan size, % rural, % women, etc.)Service Quality: proxies (no. off products/drop-out ratio)

Deeper analysis:Outreach: complete socio-economic profile (and poverty profile)Service quality: direct feedback about clients satisfaction/dissatisfaction

Why two modalities? Customised approach different stakeholders different needs To better answer to the questions:

- WHO are your (MFI) clients? - Are you really meeting their needs?

20

Direct collection of client level data

1. Outreach is crucial, but the information collected by MFIs is rarely sufficient to provide a complete picture of clients,

2. The validity of proxies (loan size) has not been proved3. The standardization of outreach indicators is not yet achieved,

entailing limited comparability of data collected by MFI

The direct collection of client data is justified– in an historical perspective: initial phase of development – by pragmatic considerations: advantages in terms of

promotion of standards and creation of comparable indicators– as a learning process for the MFIs, transmission of tools

21

Added values of the ESR

Permits increased transparency in microfinance

Permits increased comparability (Generate a database of comparable information to build benchmarks)

Permits reporting on the core social performance indicators (MIX)

Represents an important step towards the establishment of an effective social performance monitoring and tracking system (Direct transmission of tools to the MFI)

Provides baseline-data for impact studies on clients that may be conducted in future

Can represent the basis for a study on the actual validity of proxies as estimates for client poverty

Enhanced Social Rating (ESR):

22

Methodology: Areas of analysisAREA SUBAREA

SPM SYSTEM

Social Mission, Objectives and Strategy

SP tracking and monitoring systems

Consistency of the systems to the mission

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYSR towards the clients

SR towards the staff

SR towards the community and the environment

OUTREACHOperational areas

Target reached

QUALITY OF THE SERVICE

Variety of the service

Appropriateness to clients’ needs and attention to clients satisfaction

Non-financial Services

23

Methodology: source of information

Interviews with the staff of the MFI (HQs and branches) and with members of the BoD

Documents available at MFI level (Business plans, manuals, code of conduct, etc.)

MIS Secondary sources: statistical studies, census and other relevant

national and international surveys Focus groups with clients: to assess service quality

• Intra-group homogeneity and inter-group heterogeneity• Different sets of FG: urban/rural; group/individual loan, by products

Survey of clients: to assess outreach, quality and SR• Population of interest: recent active clients• Approach – separate external team &/or MFI field staff

24

Main contents of the survey of clients

1 Household members/activities (occupation, age, education)2 Type of enterprises financed with micro-credit3 PPI and/or income/consumption4 Assets property and living condition5 Access to financial service (financial exclusion)6 Access to basic services7 Awareness (cost and conditions of products)8 Clients satisfaction

25

Poverty scorecard – PPI (1)

• Specific tool for each country• Generally effective in both urban and rural context• Estimates the poverty profile of clients• Allows monitoring the poverty dynamic of clients

• Easy to collect, verifiable, non financial. Example:– Household size– Number of children attending school– House characteristics– Household assets

• Derived from a national household survey

26

27

Poverty scorecard – PPI (2)

1. Poverty assessment tools, USAID, available for the following countries: Albania, Bangladesh, Colombia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Tajikistan, Uganda, Vietnam - http://www.povertytools.org/USAID_Tools/USAID_Tools.htm

2. Progress Out of poverty index, available for the following

countries : Bangladesh, Malawi, Bolivia, Nigeria, Haiti, Nepal, India, South Africa, Mexico, El Salvador, Morocco, Palestine, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Philippines, Kenya, Vietnam, Guatemala, Mali http://www.microfinance.com/#Poverty_Scoring

A

C

T

I

V

I

T

I

E

S

T

O

O

L

S

Proposal

Contract

CONTRACT

Contract

Proposal

E-mail

Preliminary word, xls

Sampling tools

Contact

Preliminary

Set survey:-counterpart-interviewers-sampling-design questionaire

PRELIMINARY

30 days

Questionnaire

Material for enterviewers’ training

Checklist

Material for focus group

Data entry template

Adapt questionnaire

Train interviewers

Identify focus groups & branch

Set agenda

Supervise survey

Docs & data

Meetings

Branch & focus groups

Review survey output & set data entry

Final meeting

MISSION

Submission of questionnaires

Data entry

10 days

Report template

Social data analysis tool

Survey data analysis tool

Benchmark

Country sources database

Scoring and scale

Analyze notes, data and docs

Draft report

Consider feedbacks on results & social rating

Final report

REPORTING

60 days

ENHANCED SOCIAL RATING PROCESS

Areas of analysis

30

DIMENSION SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES INDICATORS

SPM SYSTEM

Mission, social objectives and strategy

Clarity of the Mission (explicit expression of the main social goals)Staff awareness and adherence of/to the mission (channel to disseminate it)Balanced (social/financial) and supportive governance Identification of SMART(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Based) social objectives, their inclusion in the strategic plan and translation in measurable targets

MIS and SP tracking system

Appropriateness of the MIS to monitor social performance advancements and achievement of social goalsEffective tracking and monitoring of social goals (socio-economic profile, clients satisfaction/changes in living conditions):

Use of poverty assessment tool(PPI, IRIS, other) Measurement and monitoring of drop-out and investigation of reasons

Appropriateness of the reporting system to inform governance and management decisions related to social performance

Systems’ adequacy to the mission

Consistency of products characteristics and credit policies/procedures with the mission

Consistency of personnel policies with the mission (staff incentive, hiring, training, staff evaluation, etc)

Targeting strategies and use of targeting tools: operational area/ niche of client/pro-poor methodologyMarket research/systems to investigate client satisfaction/Product development

31

Basis for the analysis of a SPM system: necessary steps in SPM

• Necessity to intentionally manage social performance to be effectively able to put the mission into practice:Set a clear mission with explicit social goals Identify smart social goals and include them in strategic planningPut in place a strategy to achieve them (including setting

measurable targets for each social goal)Tracking and monitoring the achievement of social targets and

using results to improve social missionPut in place systems (policy/procedure/staff management) to be

able to achieve them

32

Basis for the analysis of a SPM system: Social Mission Statement (clarity and diffusion)

The existence of an unique official mission statement is strongly recommended to ensure mission implementation and diffusion

Mission has to be clear Social mission has to be an explicit expression of the main social

goals. It should clearly indicate the desired performance:SG1: Who: outreach (priority target to be reached)SG2: How: service offered SG3: Why: desired impact/purpose

Has to reflect the actual prioritized target Social Mission should be communicated clearly and consistently

reinforced down the hierarchical ladder

MFIs with an explicit and clear mission statement will tend to be more effective in fulfilling their social mission.

33

Good Example: “best practices”: Alsol (Mexico)

The mission statement makes explicit reference to the three main recognised social goals and seem to fully reflect the target clientele prioritised by directors and managers. The identified target is quite narrow and specific. The importance attached to the offering of non-financial social services is also clearly expressed in the mission statement.

MISSION STATEMENT:

“To work for poverty reduction in rural and semi-urban areas, providing financial services to low income women with quality, responsibility, professionalism and respect, as well as to support them with training trough specialised institutions”

34

Good Example: “best practices”: Finca Peru

ADHERENCE TO SOCIAL MISSION OF MANAGEMENT AND STAFF

• Social Mission is clearly communicated and consistently reinforced

• Existence of systematic channel to disperse the mission within the organisation and to new staff

• The charismatic CEO, Mrs Iris Lanao Flores, keeps the management team motivated and committed to the social added value of Finca operations.

• Mission declaration and the values promoted by Finca are systematically mentioned in official documents, a part of which is circulated among staff and clients.

• Frequent staff meetings at branch level are taken as opportunities to refresh the mission and to reinforce its central role in daily operations

35

Good Example: “best practices”: FDL (Nicaragua)

STRATEGY

Social objectives are formalized in the strategic plan:• Increase the portfolio dedicated to small agricultural and livestock entrepreneurs• Increase the outreach to lower income microentrepreneurs (group loan methodology) • Improve offer of non-financial services (through alliances with nfs providers)• Increase the retention of good clients (reducing drop-out ratio)

Quite good quantification of social goals into measurable targets• 60% of the outstanding portfolio dedicated to agricultural and livestock businesses;• Increase the % of group lending (fixing targets in terms of number of groups for branches) and adaptation of this methodology in two additional branches, Tipitapa and Estelì; • Consolidate the development and investment portfolio (long term loans for fixed capital) for the agricultural and livestock sector, increasing it from 17% to 20% of the total portfolio; • Reduce the drop-out rate from 21.7% to 18%;

36

Dimensions of analysis: SPM SYSTEM (MISSION, STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS)

1. SOCIAL MISSION, SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY

Very supportive governance structure

Strong adherence to social mission of management and senior staff Lack of systematic channel to disperse the mission within new staff Social objectives are formalized in the strategic plan:

- Increase the portfolio dedicated to small agricultural and livestock entrepreneurs- Increase the outreach to lower income microentrepreneurs (group loan methodology) - Improve offer of non-financial services (through alliances with nfs providers)- Increase the retention of good clients (reducing drop-out ratio)

Improvable quantification of social goals into measurable targets

37

2. MIS AND SP TRACKING SYSTEM The assessment and monitoring of performance towards social

objectives is quite satisfactory (tracking of clients profile and changes)

Tracking drop-out ratio but no systematic investigation of reasons for drop-out

3. SYSTEMS’ ADEQUACY TO THE MISSION Systems for facilitating the access to FDL’s services to poor

households (group lending/soft guarantee) Strong consistency of systems and practices to social mission

(adequate bonus system, staff performance evaluation, conduction of satisfaction survey)

Dimensions of analysis: SPM SYSTEM (MISSION, STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS)

38

DIMENSION SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES INDICATORS

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

(SR)

Towards staff

Existence of a formal code of conduct governing actions towards employees% women at management and staff levelStaff satisfaction and labor climate (Staff turn-over, etc)Salaries in line with the levels of the financial sectorEffectiveness, fairness and transparency of the incentive systemCareer and training opportunities Security level of labor conditionsConduction of staff satisfaction surveys and relative results

Towards clients

Existence of a formal code of conduct governing actions towards clients (customer protection code)Strategic approach to women empowerment Measures to face risk of over-indebtednessElement of Customer Protection:

Pro-active mechanisms for obtaining client complaints and responding to them (grievance mechanisms)Use of communication methods appropriate to clients capacity and financial awarenessTransparency of products and methodologies

•Clear communication of products’ conditions (oral and written) •Clients’ awareness of the products’ offer and conditions •Clients awareness of the effective interest rate

Towards community and environment

Values promoted in the communityCommunity investment (% of operating revenue)Existence and effective implementation of an environmental policyEnvironment as a field of interest for the future developmentActivities whose financing is prohibited (negative impact on environment or community)

39

Dimensions of analysis: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Toward Staff:Quite high staff turnover in particular for administrative staff (no bonus system for them)Existence of an ethical code of conduct Good labor climate reflecting adequate human resources policiesTransparent incentive scheme Non-monetary benefits (scholarship; internal credits)

Conduction of personnel satisfaction and labor climate surveyTraining and other actions to foster gender equality among staff Lack of a person dedicated to the training function, a need to be strengthened; Lack of career plans for staff The base salary level is slightly lower than that offered by the regulated financial sector

40

Dimensions of analysis: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Toward Clients: strategy to address gender barriers and to promote women empowerment

(group loans/training to staff about gender issues) FDL does not charge clients with high costs (real portfolio yield 19%) Problem of over-indebtedness to be better monitored and managed Improvable client protection measures:

the complex structure of the cost of loans and the lack of complete written documents given to clients are among the main reasons limiting the overall transparency

- Existence of formal grievance channels (suggestion box; product development department receiving clients coming to HQ), but not adequately advertised

Foreign exchange risk born by clientsToward Community and Environment: No formalized written formal policy but… Environment as an explicit field of interest (not financing agricultural activity in

area bordering the forest) Actions for preserving environment (green package product)

41

Example of indicators

DIMENSION SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES INDICATORS

OUTREACH

Operational areas

Coverage of the national territory

Operational Area: rural/ urban; not served by formal financial intermediaries; affected by adverse climatic events socio-economic position respect to the national average (in terms of HDI, MDG; unemployment rate, etc.)

Target reached (breadth and depth of outreach)

Breadth of outreach (active clients, gross loan/saving portfolio, growth)

Social Vulnerability profile of clients and its household members (gender, ethnical affiliation, occupation, education, no. of different sources of income, etc.)

Financed activities and employment support (sector, no. employees, etc)Economic Poverty Profile (PPI) Access to basic services (water, sewage system, electricity, health serv.) Access to financial services/Financial Exclusion Assets ownership (house, land, other relevant in the context)Loan size analysis

43

Dimensions of analysis: OUTREACH - MIS

44

Dimensions of analysis: OUTREACH - Survey: poverty rate

• To be compared with national average

45

OUTREACH - Survey: Property of Asset/Social Poverty/access to financial services

46

Example of indicators

47

Example of indicators (2)

48

DIMENSION SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES INDICATORS

QUALITY OF THE SERVICE

Variety

Number and kind of credit products

Supply of other financial services

Supply of non-financial services

Appropriateness and client satisfaction

Flexibility

Appropriateness of the supply of services to the clients needs

Client Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction .. Its perception respect to: Service DeliveryCostGuaranteeAmountTermRepayment frequencyCustomer care (relation with personnel)Time to disburse a loan Simplicity of documentations and procedures to get a credit

Drop-out rate and its reasons

Non –financial services

-Variety-Quality

49

Dimensions of analysis: QUALITY of the SERVICE

Example from FDL- Nicaragua case:

Large variety of credit products Flexibility of loans conditionsOffer of non-financial servicesConstant effort for innovationCost quite low

BUT

Saving and insurance not availableLong time for disbursementNo tools to assess the quality of non-financial services

50

Example of indicators

Scale and global analysis

52

Rating scale and outreach

• Outreach: to be included in the grade or described?

– described:1. reaching development goals is not

necessarily a direct function of depth of outreach (impact of financing SME on the employment of the poorest)

2. stakeholders can have different priorities in terms of outreach (women, refugees, ethnic minorities; micro; SME)

– evaluated:1. Coherence with the mission (actual

outreach vs. intended outreach)

AREA WEIGHT

SPM SYSTEM 30%

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

20%

OUTREACH 25%

QUALITY OF THE SERVICE

25%

53

Synthesis of the results

54

Definition

AAA Excellent capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.

AA Very good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.

A Good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to promotesocial values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.

BBB Fairly good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. High likelihood to achieve social goals.

BB Adequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. High likelihood to achieve social goals.

B Fairly adequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. Reasonable likelihood to achieve social goals.

C Moderate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. Reasonable likelihood to achieve social goals.

D Inadequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and topromote social values. Low likelihood to achieve social goals.

The rating grade can be corrected with a + or – sign, which implies a slight positive or negative variation respect to the main grade.

Rating grade

55

Social performance Adequate

Social Performance Management system Adequate

Mission and strategy Improvable

Tracking and monitoring systems Improvable

Systems consistency to the mission Adequate

Social Responsibility Adequate

Social responsibility towards personnel Improvable

Social responsibility towards clients Good

Social responsibility towards community and environment Improvable

Outreach Good

Alignment of outreach depth to the mission Good

Breadth of outreach Good

Quality of the services Good

Variety of services Good

Appropriateness to clients' needs Good

Non financial services Good

79%

73%

56%

51%

64%

Detailed judgment by area

56

Outreach description

74%

58%

43%

37%

89%

32%

34%

Clients below poverty line

Rural area, (no. clients)

Female clients

Clients w ithout primaryeducation

Households w ithoutimproved w ater

Households w ithoutimproved sanitation

Clients w ithout previousaccess to credit

Feedback from MFIs and Lessons learned

58

Social Rating Projects: our experiences so far

3 simple social ratings (Latin America and ECA) 5 enhanced social ratings in Latin America (Nicaragua, Mexico,

Perù, Chile) supported by Ford Foundation 3 enhanced social ratings in Latin America (Ecuador and Perù)

supported by Oikocredit Additional 4 enhanced social ratings (Latin America, Eastern

Europe, Africa) Several social ratings already planned for 2008 (with various actors

including Oikocredit, Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance, social investors/MFIs/donors) in Latin America and Central Asia

New project: 6 social ratings supported by CordAid on 3 continents Rated MFIs include Banco Solidario Ecuador, FIE Bolivia, FDL

Nicaragua

59

Lessons learned

Strong interest in social rating, resulting from the willingness to: Improve the SPM and achieve social objectives Align with social stakeholders’ expectations Basis for a revision of mission statement Basis for rethinking strategies Enrichment of tools available at institution level to track poverty profile of clients

(Strong interest in PPI tool, frequently unknown)

MFI involvement and willingness to participate is crucial

Need to grow MFI awareness about what is a social performance assessment and its conceptual framework. Learning about social performance is a process: Distinction between social impact and performance not clear Areas of assessment of social rating not yet internalized Confusion among tools available

60

Lessons learned (2)

Existence of synergies between SPA and technical assistance to strengthen the SPMS

Weakness of loan size proxy to estimate poverty necessity to develop tools to measure and monitor the poverty level of clients

Outreach indicators to be adapted to the type of target served (i.e. physical versus juridical persons)

We can go toward standards and comparable indicators ….but long way

61

Thank you!!!MF Rating HQ

Corso Sempione, 65 20149 Milan – Italy Tel: +39-02-3656.5019 Fax: +39-02-3656.5018

MF Rating South AmericaCalle Pasaje El Jardín #152 y Avenida 6 de Diciembre, Quito – Ecuador Tel.: +593-2-2248.114

MF Rating Central AmericaCostado Nor-oeste Parque El Dorado Casa 116. Residencial El Dorado, Managua – Nicaragua

Tel.: +505-2480.858

MF Rating Central Asia, the Caucasus and Russia231, Tynystanova Str., apt. 14 720011, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic Tel: +996-312 68 2997

MF Rating Africac/o Prima Apartments, Gichugu Road, Kileleshwa, Nairobi - Kenya

Tel: +254 (0)20 300 6423; Mob: +254 (0)737 43 9297

Antenna in BrusselsRue de la Victoire 101, Brusseles - Belgium Tel.: +32-2-539.2422

www.microfinanzarating.com info@microfinanzarating.com